The Relationship Between Fate and Will and Relation

The Enduring Dance: Unpacking the Relationship Between Fate and Will

The interplay between fate and will is one of philosophy's most ancient and persistent puzzles, a profound relation that shapes our understanding of human agency, responsibility, and the very structure of the cosmos. Are our lives predetermined by an inescapable fate, a chain of necessity that unfolds regardless of our desires? Or do we possess a genuine will, the power to make choices and carve our own path amidst the realm of contingency? This article delves into the rich history of this debate, exploring how thinkers from the Great Books of the Western World have grappled with the tension between what must be and what might be, ultimately seeking a nuanced perspective on where our freedom truly lies.

Introduction: The Age-Old Question

From the tragic heroes of ancient Greece to the theological debates of the Middle Ages and the rationalist inquiries of the Enlightenment, humanity has wrestled with the feeling that some events are destined while simultaneously asserting an inherent capacity for choice. This isn't merely an academic exercise; it touches the core of our moral landscape, our legal systems, and our personal aspirations. If fate dictates all, is praise or blame truly meaningful? If will reigns supreme, how do we account for the seemingly unavoidable circumstances that shape our lives? The journey through philosophical history reveals a continuous effort to reconcile these powerful forces.

Ancient Echoes: Destiny's Unyielding Grip

In the earliest narratives of the Western tradition, fate often appears as an immutable force, more powerful even than the gods. Homer's epics, for instance, frequently depict heroes like Achilles and Odysseus operating within a preordained destiny, even as their individual courage and choices dictate the specific paths they take.

Greek Tragedy and Moira: Plays by Sophocles, particularly Oedipus Rex, powerfully illustrate the tragic consequences of trying to escape a prophesied fate. Oedipus's every action, taken in the exercise of his will, paradoxically leads him closer to the fulfillment of his terrible destiny. Here, individual will seems to be an instrument, not an antagonist, of fate.
Plato's Cosmic Order: While Plato emphasized the importance of individual moral choice and the pursuit of virtue, his cosmology, particularly in Timaeus, suggests a divinely ordered universe where souls choose their lives before birth, implying a pre-established framework for their earthly existence.
Aristotle and Voluntary Action: Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, meticulously distinguished between voluntary and involuntary actions, laying the groundwork for understanding moral responsibility. He acknowledged external constraints but firmly placed the locus of ethical action within the individual's rational will, though always within the bounds of what is naturally possible.
The Stoics' Acceptance: For thinkers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, the wisest approach was to discern what is within our power (our judgments, desires, aversions – our will) and what is not (external events, the past, the future – fate). True freedom, they argued, lay not in changing fate, but in aligning our will with the rational order of the cosmos, accepting necessity with tranquility.

Divine Providence and Human Agency: The Medieval Conundrum

The advent of monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity, introduced a new layer of complexity: the problem of divine foreknowledge. If an omniscient God already knows every choice we will make, how can our will truly be free?

Augustine's Struggle: Saint Augustine, in City of God, famously grappled with this paradox. He argued strenuously for the reality of human free will, asserting that God's foreknowledge does not cause our actions, but merely knows them. God's eternal perspective encompasses all time, but our choices remain our own, making us morally accountable. The tension between divine necessity (God's plan) and human contingency (our choices) remained a profound mystery.
Aquinas and Primary/Secondary Causes: Thomas Aquinas, building on Aristotle, posited a universe where God is the primary cause of all existence, but human beings act as secondary causes. God grants us the power of will, and our choices, while ultimately sustained by divine power, are genuinely ours. He saw no contradiction between divine providence and free choice; rather, God's perfect plan includes and enables our freedom.

The Enlightenment's Unraveling: Reason, Determinism, and Liberty

The rise of scientific thought and rationalism in the early modern period brought new perspectives, often leaning towards a more deterministic view of the universe, challenging the traditional understanding of free will.

Spinoza's Radical Determinism: Baruch Spinoza, in his Ethics, presented a meticulously reasoned philosophy where everything, including human actions and thoughts, is determined by the eternal, necessary laws of God or Nature. For Spinoza, what we perceive as free will is merely our ignorance of the true causes that compel us. There is no contingency; everything is necessary. Freedom, in his view, is the understanding and acceptance of this necessity.
Locke and Hume: Compatibility: John Locke, while not a strict determinist, explored the concept of liberty as the power to act or not to act according to one's will. David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, argued for the compatibility of liberty and necessity. He defined necessity as constant conjunction (causality) and liberty as the power to act according to one's motives, free from external constraint. For Hume, a world without necessity (cause and effect) would be chaotic and unintelligible, rendering moral judgment impossible.
Kant's Moral Freedom: Immanuel Kant famously sought to rescue human freedom from the clutches of scientific determinism. In his Critique of Pure Reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he distinguished between the phenomenal world (governed by necessity and causality) and the noumenal world (the realm of things-in-themselves, including the rational self). For Kant, moral freedom, or autonomy of the will, is not merely an absence of external constraint, but the capacity to act according to self-imposed moral law, a necessity of reason, not of nature. Our will is free when it acts rationally, independently of empirical inclinations.

(Image: A detailed allegorical painting depicting a blindfolded figure, representing Fate, holding a vast, intricate tapestry woven with myriad threads, some brightly colored and vibrant, others dark and tangled. A second figure, representing Will, with open, determined eyes, stands beside the tapestry, attempting to pull or cut a specific thread with a small, sharp tool, while other threads subtly shift around them. The background shows a cosmic scene with both orderly celestial mechanics and turbulent, swirling nebulae, symbolizing necessity and contingency.)

The Modern Predicament: Reclaiming the Will

The 19th and 20th centuries saw philosophers grapple with the implications of scientific advancements and the perceived loss of traditional anchors, often leading to a renewed emphasis on the individual will.

Nietzsche's Will to Power: Friedrich Nietzsche, challenging traditional morality and metaphysics, proclaimed the "will to power" as the fundamental driving force of all existence. For Nietzsche, humanity is not merely subject to fate; rather, we possess the power to create our own values, to define our own meaning, and to affirm life in the face of nihilism. This is a radical assertion of will over any preordained necessity, encouraging individuals to become authors of their own destiny. His concept of "eternal recurrence" also challenges individuals to live as if every moment will repeat infinitely, demanding a powerful affirmation of one's will.

Necessity and Contingency: The Fabric of Existence

The debate between fate and will is fundamentally intertwined with the concepts of necessity and contingency.

Necessity: Refers to that which must be, that which cannot be otherwise. This can be logical necessity (e.g., 2+2=4), physical necessity (e.g., gravity), or metaphysical necessity (e.g., divine determinism). If our actions are necessary, then our will is an illusion.
Contingency: Refers to that which may or may not be, that which depends on circumstances, or could have been otherwise. The existence of contingency is crucial for genuine free will. If the future is open, if there are multiple possible paths, then our choices hold genuine weight.

The core tension lies in whether the universe, and our place within it, is ultimately a realm of absolute necessity or whether it allows for genuine contingency where our will can operate effectively. Many philosophers seek a middle ground, acknowledging a framework of necessity (physical laws, historical circumstances) within which a significant degree of contingency and will can flourish.

Finding the Balance: A Chloe Fitzgerald Perspective

As we navigate the vast philosophical landscape, it becomes clear that a simplistic "either/or" approach to fate and will fails to capture the richness of human experience. My own reflection leads me to believe that the truth lies in a dynamic, often paradoxical, relation between the two.

Consider the following dimensions of this intricate dance:

Acknowledging Externalities: We are undeniably born into specific circumstances, historical periods, and with certain genetic predispositions. These represent a form of fate or necessity that we do not choose. To deny this is naive.
The Power of Response: Yet, within these given parameters, our will manifests most powerfully in our response. As the Stoics taught, we may not control events, but we control our judgments and reactions. This is where true freedom resides – not in escaping all necessity, but in choosing our attitude towards it.
Shaping the Contours: Our collective and individual will also shapes the contingent aspects of the future. Laws are changed, societies are reformed, innovations emerge – all products of human intention and effort. While the future is not entirely open, it is not entirely closed either.
The Creative Will: Perhaps the most profound assertion of will comes from our capacity to create meaning, to set goals, and to envision a future that doesn't yet exist. This aligns with Nietzsche's call to create one's own values, transforming necessity into opportunity.

Ultimately, the relationship between fate and will is not one of simple opposition but of profound interdependence. Fate provides the stage and some of the props; will writes and performs the play. We are constrained by necessity, yet within those constraints, our will finds its most potent expression in navigating the contingency of life, making choices that, however small, ripple through the fabric of existence.

Conclusion: The Enduring Question

The question of fate versus will is not one that can be definitively answered and then dismissed. It is a fundamental inquiry that continues to challenge and inspire, prompting us to reflect on our responsibility, our limitations, and our boundless potential. By engaging with the profound insights from the Great Books of the Western World, we gain a deeper appreciation for this timeless debate, allowing us to better understand our place in the cosmic order and the power we hold to shape our own lives.

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Free Will vs Determinism Philosophy Explained""